Pre-soak

[Photo Engineer]

Dyes in film are of 3 types, Sensitizing dyes, Acutance dyes, and Antihalation dyes.

Antihalation dyes are best coated on the back of the support or in a layer underneath the emulsion layer. We know what they are for. Acutance dyes are dyes that prevent internal reflections and add sharpness to the image thereby. Both of these dyes can wash out immediately.

Sensitizing dyes are adsorbed tightly to the emulsion grains. As such they don't wash out except from developed grains, and even then they can stick to the Silver metal. These give some films a pink or gray color after fixing, if the fix is bad or short. They usually wash out in the final wash or in the wash aid.

Many types of these dyes are destroyed during processing in one way or another.

PE

 

[Trasselblad]

From my own observations I would say that different films act and require different processing (Well spotted, Sherlock!) in as much as modern Kodak films, or what is left of them, both release more dye and the dye is more tenuous than say, Fuji or Ilford films. In fact, as most of us have experienced, if not properly processed especially with weak or old fixer and too short last wash, they often carry a pink or blue tint. The fixer seems the most important step to this regard. Fuji films if improperly fixed will become brown. Both situations can be "fixed" by quickly re-fixing with a new fresh bath of fixer and wash.

Personally I have, with regards to the environment, reduced all chemicals and steps. I have replaced stop bath by a 30 second wash under constant agitation and skipped hypo-clear as well. Instead I use the Eco-wash procedure described by Harman and because water here is extremely hard, using photo-flo doesn't help so instead a careful squeegee or fingerwipe has replaced that.

So, what is the verdict? pre-soak or not?

 

[Roger Cole]

What's the environmental advantage of using water instead of stop bath? :confused:

Granted it's not really necessary and I'm very tempted to change to TF4 from Rapid Fix, where it would be of no use anyway.

Most stop baths are just a weak organic acid. In fact you can use white vinegar diluted 1+1 if you run out of stop bath. Conventional stop bath at working strength is no more harmful than half vinegar and half water. I use a citric acid stop bath to avoid the acetic smell, so you could substitute citrus fruit juice as far as environmental impact (but not actually use it - I'm sure the sugars would not be good, to say nothing of the pulp!)

Similarly, hypo clear is pretty much sodium sulfite, sprinkled on salad bars to keep lettuce fresh and contained in America wines. Gives some people headaches, but no environmental impact that I know of. Wetting agent is just glorified soap. Don't dump in the river because soap is very bad for fish (de-slimes them) but waste water plants have no problem with it.

 

[David Allen]

I have always used a pre-soak and am totally happy with my results. I have many friends that do not use a pre-soak and they are also totally happy as well. However, every time a friend has any problems with developing marks, I suggest a pre-soak and they never have any more problems.

Since the last 24 years, I have found that, with my replenishment 2-bath developer, the greatest advantage is that my bath A doesn't end up a horrible colour due to the dyes in films. Plus I never have processing streaks or similar.

Therefore, my recommendation would always be to pre-soak. It causes no problems and, for those people experiencing streaks, etc, always proves without fail to be the solution to their problems.

Best,

www.dsallen.de

 

[RalphLambrecht]

as someone already said: this issue has always been good to part the crowd.presoaking is like a religionwith a strong following. i just don't have the time for meaningless steps,and since i don't have any streaks or water marks either: forget it!

 

[Roger Cole]

I can afford five minutes. Pour in the water and set the timer. When the timer beeps pull the lift handle and drain the water. I read on the photo forums on my iPhone while it's running!

 

[pentaxuser]

I was looking at posts about developing 116 film where the posters didn't have a tank and reel that takes such film. The consensus seemed to be that you could develop in open trays using a see-saw action in the total dark of course.

None, not even those who think that a pre-soak may prevent problems, suggested that you start by see-sawing the film through a water tray.

Can anyone suggest why the see-sawing method is OK without a pre-soak? What's different?

pentaxuser

 

[clayne]

Nothing is different - it's probably just that people didn't think to bring it up for whatever reason.

If I were see-sawing film in a way that the film might not be evenly covered in a consistent way, I would definitely pre-soak it in another tray first. But if the film were able to be cleanly submerged in the development tray, it probably wouldn't be an issue.

If by see-saw, you mean both arms up and film draping in and out of the tray... I'd prefer complete submersion myself.

 

[cliveh]

as someone already said: this issue has always been good to part the crowd.presoaking is like a religionwith a strong following. i just don't have the time for meaningless steps,and since i don't have any streaks or water marks either: forget it!

Well said Ralph and it strikes me there are lots of other meaningless steps and process variations that are discussed ad infinitum.

 

[Roger Cole]

It's not meaningless. At worst it's "sometimes un-necessary" and "detrimental with two bath developers." I agree with that (don't use it myself for inversion or Diafine) but that doesn't mean it's meaningless.

There's a thread here where the poster tries to keep all his enlarger exposures to even numbers of seconds. Now THAT is meaningless, as even he admits.

EDIT: Apparently you started that thread. I hadn't recognized that at the time which means either I didn't really catch your joke or made one where didn't intend. No offense intended of course!

 

[Photo Engineer]

I was looking at posts about developing 116 film where the posters didn't have a tank and reel that takes such film. The consensus seemed to be that you could develop in open trays using a see-saw action in the total dark of course.

None, not even those who think that a pre-soak may prevent problems, suggested that you start by see-sawing the film through a water tray.

Can anyone suggest why the see-sawing method is OK without a pre-soak? What's different?

pentaxuser

In this example from a Kodak manual of the 40s, the see saw method is shown and a prewet is used. Kodak recommended a prewet before this time and from then on never changed the recommendation. It did give several alternatives to a prewet in terms of agitation.

PE

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks P.E. That resolves my question

pentaxuser

 

[Leigh B]

In this example from a Kodak manual of the 40s, the see saw method is shown and a prewet is used.

Wow. I used to develop film that way.

I'd completely forgotten about it. :confused:

- Leigh

 

[Photo Engineer]

Leigh, we are OLD!

PE

 

[zsas]

Nahh, noble mentors!

 

[Roger Cole]

I remember seeing that in old books. It looks impossible. How could you be sure you were getting the film in the developer in total darkness? Now with orth film and a red safelight, maybe. With a night vision device, which I'm pretty sure you didn't have back then, maybe. But panchromatic film in the dark? Y'all were giants. Probably did that uphill both ways in the snow on the way to school, huh?

 

[zsas]

Haaa!! How did you not get chems all over the place too?! I get spills all the time and I have a daylight tank?!

 

[Photo Engineer]

I was about 10, and had a Dick Tracy 127 camera. I did both ortho and pan that way using one of my grandmothers soup bowls. I worked in the fruit cellar with the wooden door closed behind me and latched from the inside. It was freezing cold in the winter! IDK what the temperature was!

But it worked to an extent. Usually I ended up with a tangle of film and my dad advised me to work on learning a "real" trade.

PE

 

[Leigh B]

Leigh, we are OLD!

PE

Speak for yourself.

I don't age at all... but that picture of me in the attic...

The fact that I signed the patent application for dirt does NOT make me old. :confused:

- Leigh

 

[Photo Engineer]

Our oldest daughter gave me a T-Shirt that implies I helped name dirt! (naming comes before the patent application)

That's old.

PE

 

[Klainmeister]

I usually rinse before swimming as well.

....wait, what are we talking about?

On a side note: I've never once had spots or anything after pre-soaking my film; 120 Fuji film in a tank. I used to have that problem with stand development. Never since.

 

[Prof_Pixel]

I can remember tray processing a few 120 rolls of Verichrome using a red safelight in the early '50s.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Yeah, for me it was more like the 40s.

PE

 

[Prof_Pixel]

Yeah, Ron. I guess you are a few years older than I am.

Fred

 

[MattKing]

I remember seeing that in old books. It looks impossible. How could you be sure you were getting the film in the developer in total darkness? Now with orth film and a red safelight, maybe. With a night vision device, which I'm pretty sure you didn't have back then, maybe. But panchromatic film in the dark? Y'all were giants. Probably did that uphill both ways in the snow on the way to school, huh?

I'll have you know that I'm still relatively young (in my 50s) and this is how I started as well - 44 years ago.

It is surprisingly easy to do this well, although it is also extremely boring!

It helps to have your father with you, giving you your first set of instructions.

To do it properly though, you need a Kodak Tri-Chem pack